Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!zrm
From: zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Lieing to get a job
Message-ID: <7115@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 8-Oct-87 11:12:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: eddie.7115
Posted: Thu Oct  8 11:12:58 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 01:44:30 EDT
References: <957@bc-cis.UUCP> <1839@tekig5.TEK.COM> <158@tijc02.UUCP> <1319@houdi.UUCP> <7067@eddie.MIT.EDU> <167@tijc02.UUCP>
Reply-To: zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 63
Xref: mnetor misc.jobs.misc:803 comp.misc:1425

>
>Zigurd misrepresented what I said.  I said "I also believe in retrospect
>that I was discriminated on because of my religious beliefs."  In my

I wouldn't leave your religious convictions out of the picture. The
point is that you may hold whatever convictions you like as long as
they do not affect job performance. An employer has to be careful
about religious convictions because some religions do not encourage
their adherents to give caesar his due, but rather to carry their
religious beliefs to every corner of thier lives, even if it means
sabotaging a project at work. Or, on a lighter note, Home Shopping
Club might not hire you because they might feel that you are too
honest to hawk cubic zircona earrings, which may or may not be a
result of your religious convictions.

If a hawkish Quaker applied for a job, I might check him out
thoroughly, but I would hire him. If no such person exists, it is not
my problem.

>
>I feel that all interviewers are human and have prejudices and may not
>represent their company in all details.  It is not fair that a person
>not get a job because of a personal interviewer prejudice, and it is
>shocking that Zigurd says that it is their perogative!

I knew I could get a rise out of that line about country music. But it
shouldn't really shock you. If, in a half hour interview, I have to
make a hiring decision, I will take into account everything: how the
applicant is dressed, i.e. do his clothes express a disregard for the
importance of the interview; His grooming, i.e. is that punk-tail a
sign that the applicant holds political views that may be incompatible
with his duties; His language, i.e. does it sound influenced more by
Utne Reader or the American Spectator -- and what was his reaction to
that copy of the Spectator on my credenza. I don't have to ask an
applicant "job unrelated questions." If I take him to lunch and come
away with no clue as to his personality, I won't hire him.

>Since all interviewers have prejudices I said:  "lying may be defensible".

And, as I pointed out, it may have dire consequences to your career.

>...interesting to know if MIT's placement office might suggest the same
>thing.

I don't think it would need to.

>
>	Would you work in a nuclear power plant?

Now that is a good interview question. It asks, in effect, if the
applicant is the type who has irrational fears. It asks if the
applicant can conquer his fears if the job requires it. And it flushes
out the outright nut cases. The fact that it shocks you means that it
works. 

As for religous toleration, is it absolute on my part. You can have a
closet full of saffron robes. You may privately plan for jihad, if you
like. You can also be assured that I wouldn't make a hiring decision
on that basis or any other irrelevent personal fact, such as the color
of your skin. But if I so much as had a bad feeling about your attitude,
no offer, no recourse, and no right to compel me to change my mind.

-Zigurd